zlacker

Spending on adversiting is wasteful and socially destructive. It's deception to donors to not tell them that only 10% of their donation goes toward the mission, and 90% is wasted that could be directed elsewhere.

>>lupire+(OP)
No, it's not wasted; that's my point. Why don't you think Disney's investors demand a $7bn annual saving by cutting the "waste" on advertising?

The spend on fundraising does go towards the mission, because it increases the amount of money for the mission. You're making the incorrect assumption that donations are constant.

Imagine that a charity hiring a fundraiser for $50k garnered $150k of additional donations. Let's say without that fundraiser, they got $100k in donations. So with the fundraiser, they got $100k + $150k - $50k = $200k net to spend on the charitable purpose.

20% of all donations go to the fundraiser's salary while she's employed. But if the fundraiser is sacked, then 100% of donations go to the mission, yet the mission takes a loss of 50%.

>>samlov+Q1
> The spend on fundraising does go towards the mission

But which mission?